SANDIP VASANT BHOLE Vs. DIVISIONAL TRAFFIC SUPERINTENDENT (APARADH)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

(2.) By this petition petitioner challenges judgment and order dtd. 4/12/2019 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Jalgaon rejecting the Revision preferred against the judgment and order dtd. 2/7/2019 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jalgaon recording finding on the preliminary issue of enquiry being conducted in fair and legal manner and findings in the enquiry report being supported by the evidence.

(3.) Appearing for petitioner, Mr. Shinde, learned counsel would submit that the issue of the Disciplinary Authority himself acting as an Enquiry Officer was specifically raised in the complaint filed before the Labour Court which has been completely ignored by the Labour Court in its judgment and order dtd. 2/7/2019. He would further submit that in such a situation the Industrial Court ought to have remanded the matter back to the Labour Court, but instead the Industrial Court proceeded to decide that point itself. He would further submit that under the provisions of Rule 18 of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the Disciplinary Authority initiating enquiry is not competent to act in capacity as Enquiry Officer. Mr. Shinde, would further contend that, the Disciplinary Authority not only acted as Enquiry Officer but committed further illegality in acting as Presenting Officer by putting questions to the witnesses. He would, therefore, submit that the same officer for multiple roles in the enquiry which is impermissible in law. In support of his contentions Mr. Shinde would rely upon the judgment of this Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Wardha v. Rajendra Mohanlal Chhangani, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 9561.